The induction of DNA damage and the resulting sequelae of mutations and chromosomal rearrangements are primary mechanisms by which cancers arise. These types of events have also been implicated in diseases such as atherosclerosis, processes such as aging, and the development of birth defects such as Down syndrome. Therefore, there is an important need for sensitive methods which are capable of identifying chemical or physical agents that can alter DNA. Given the tremendous cost of long-term chronic studies such as 2-year carcinogenicity tests, short- and medium-term systems for predicting DNA damage potential continue play a vital role in tumorigenic agent identification. In fact, the need for short-term tests that have a high throughput capacity has never been greater. Advances in molecular biology and combinatorial chemistry have provided large numbers of potential targets and many novel compounds that may be useful for treating or preventing disease. However, before such agents can be tested and widely administered, acceptable toxicity to critical organs must be demonstrated. In the area of environmental health and safety, many natural and industrially manufactured compounds and formulations have not been adequately evaluated for toxicity. In both arenas, traditional toxicity evaluations are labor intensive and require extensive use of in vivo assays. This situation offers opportunities for methods that are able to quickly and inexpensively determine toxicological profiles of potential therapeutic drugs and environmental agents.
Micronuclei are formed upon cell division in cells with DNA double-strand break(s) or dysfunctional mitotic spindle apparatus. Based on this detailed understanding of micronuclei origin, the rodent-based micronucleus test has become the most widely utilized in vivo system for evaluating the clastogenic and aneugenic potential of chemicals (Heddle, “A Rapid In Vivo Test for Chromosome Damage,” Mutat. Res. 18:187-190 (1973); Schmid, “The Micronucleus Test,” Mutat. Res. 31:9-15 (1975); Hayashi et al., “In Vivo Rodent Erythrocyte Micronucleus Assay. II. Some Aspects of Protocol Design Including Repeated Treatments, Integration With Toxicity Testing, and Automated Scoring,” Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 35:234-252 (2000)). These rodent-based tests are most typically performed as erythrocyte-based assays. Since erythroblast precursors are a rapidly dividing cell population, and their nucleus is expelled a few hours after the last mitosis, micronucleus-associated chromatin is particularly simple to detect in reticulocytes and normochromatic erythrocytes given appropriate staining (e.g., acridine orange) (Hayashi et al., “An Application of Acridine Orange Fluorescent Staining to the Micronucleus Test,” Mutat. Res. 120:241-247 (1983)).
One of the short-term test systems that is believed to hold great promise as a rapid tool for screening drug candidates and other chemicals for genotoxic activity is the in vitro micronucleus test. Analogous to the way in vivo erythrocyte-based micronucleus tests have become more common than in vivo chromosome aberration analyses, a growing consensus has been forming that in vitro micronucleus assays could largely replace in vitro chromosome aberration studies. While both endpoints are capable of detecting agents that cause structural or numerical chromosome aberrations, in vitro micronucleus formation is technically easier to perform and score. The difficulty, however, is identifying the procedures that can reliably achieve an in vitro micronucleus assay that can satisfy the need for both fast and accurate results.
The in vitro micronucleus test demonstrates high concordance with chromosome aberration analyses, but it is executed more rapidly and requires less technical expertise (Matsuoka et al., “Evaluation of the Micronucleus Test Using a Chinese Hamster Cell Line as an Alternative to the Conventional In Vitro Chromosomal Aberration Test,” Mutat. Res. 272:223-236 (1993); Miller et al., “Comparative Evaluation of the In Vitro Micronucleus Test and the In Vitro Chromosome Aberration Test: Industrial Experience,” Mutat. Res. 392:45-59 (1997); Miller et al., “Evaluation of the In Vitro Micronucleus Test as an Alternative to the In Vitro Chromosome Aberration Assay: Position of the GUM Working Group on the In Vitro Micronucleus Test,” Mutat. Res. 410:81-116 (1998)). These characteristics have led to its widespread use as an efficient and relatively simple method to screen drug candidates and other test articles for clastogenic and aneugenic potential (Nesslany et al., “A Micromethod for the In Vitro Micronucleus Assay,” Mutagenesis 14: 403-410 (1999)). Furthermore, there have been concerted efforts to establish robust protocols so that the in vitro micronucleus test can serve as a source of cytogenetic damage information for regulatory submission purposes in place of in vitro chromosome aberration results (Albertini et al., “Detailed Data on In Vitro MNT and In Vitro CA: Industrial Experience,” Mutat. Res. 392:187-208 (1997); von der Hude et al., “In Vitro Micronucleus Assay with Chinese Hamster V79 Cells—Results of a Collaborative Study with In Situ Exposure to 26 Chemical Substances,” Mutat. Res. 468:137-163 (2000); Garriott et al., “A Protocol for the In Vitro Micronucleus Test. I. Contributions to the Development of a Protocol Suitable for Regulatory Submissions from an Examination of 16 Chemicals with Different Mechanisms of Action and Different Levels of Activity,” Mutat. Res. 517:123-134 (2002); Phelps et al., “A Protocol for the In Vitro Micronucleus Test. II. Contribution to the Validation of a Protocol Suitable for Regulatory Submissions from an Examination of 10 Chemicals with Different Mechanisms of Action and Different Levels of Activity,” Mutat. Res. 521:103-112 (2002); Kirsch-Volders et al., “Report from the In Vitro Micronucleus Assay Working Group,” Mutat. Res. 540:153-163 (2003)). In fact these activities have progressed to the point that draft guidelines have been written by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (“OECD”) (“Draft Proposal for a New Guideline 487: In Vitro Micronucleus Test,” June 2004).
Given the growing enthusiasm for the in vitro micronucleus endpoint, numerous efforts to automate the scoring phase of the technique have been described in the literature—methods based on image analysis, laser scanning cytometry, and flow cytometry have all been reported (Nüsse et al., “Flow Cytometric Analysis of Micronuclei Found in Cells After Irradiation,” Cytometry 5:20-25 (1984); Schreiber et al., “An Automated Flow Cytometric Micronucleus Assay for Human Lymphocytes,” Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 62:695-709 (1992); Schreiber et al., “Multiparametric Flow Cytometric Analysis of Radiation-Induced Micronuclei in Mammalian Cell Cultures,” Cytometry 13:90-102 (1992); Vral et al., “The In Vitro CytoKinesis-Block Micronucleus Assay: A Detailed Description of an Improved Slide Preparation Technique for the Automated Detection of Micronuclei in Human Lymphocytes,” Mutagenesis 9:439-443 (1994); Verhaegen et al., “Scoring of Radiation-Induced Micronuclei Cytokineses-Blocked Human Lymphocytes by Automated Image Analysis,” Cytometry 17:119-127 (1994); Wicker et al., “Image Processing Algorithms for the Automated Micronucleus Assay in Binucleated Human Lymphocytes,” Cytometry 19:283-294 (1995); Wessels et al., “Flow cytometric Detection of Micronuclei by Combined Staining of DNA and Membranes,” Cytometry 19:201-208 (1995); Viaggi et al., “Flow Cytometric Analysis of Micronuclei in the CD2+ Subpopulation of Human Lymphocytes Enriched by Magnetic Separation,” Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 67:193-202 (1995); Nüsse et al., “Flow Cytometric Analysis of Micronuclei In Cell Cultures and Human Lymphocytes: Advantages and Disadvantages,” Mutat. Res. 392:109-115 (1997); Roman et al., “Evaluation of a New Procedure for the Flow Cytometric Analysis of In Vitro, Chemically Induced Micronuclei in V79 Cells,” Environ. Molec. Mutagen. 32:387-396 (1998)). The most established technique for high throughput in vitro micronuclei scoring, both in terms of years since original description and the number of peer-reviewed publications, is the flow cytometric (“FCM”) procedure developed by Nüsse and colleagues (Nüsse et al., “Flow Cytometric Analysis of Micronuclei Found in Cells After Irradiation,” Cytometry 5:20-25 (1984); Schreiber et al., “An Automated Flow Cytometric Micronucleus Assay for Human Lymphocytes,” Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 62:695-709 (1992); Schreiber et al., “Multiparametric Flow Cytometric Analysis of Radiation-Induced Micronuclei in Mammalian Cell Cultures,” Cytometry 13:90-102 (1992); Nüsse et al., “Flow Cytometric Analysis of Micronuclei in Cell Cultures and Human Lymphocytes Advantages and Disadvantages,” Mutat. Res. 392:109-115 (1997)).
As the major limitation of FCM-based techniques has been their inability to distinguish true micronuclei from apoptotic bodies, methods for differential staining of micronuclei from the chromatin of dead and dying cells are needed.
The present invention overcomes the disadvantages of prior art approaches, and satisfies the need of establishing a robust, reliable, high throughput in vitro micronucleus assay.